Weiland defends comparison regarding limitless giving

Rick Weiland has built his U.S. Senate campaign on addressing the role of “big money” in politics, so it’s not surprising that he wasn’t happy Wednesday when the U.S. Supreme Court tossed out limits on how much money wealthy donors can give to politicians and parties.

But the way Weiland expressed his displeasure with the McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling has raised a few eyebrows.

In a fundraising letter sent out Wednesday afternoon, Weiland said the Supreme Court’s McCutcheon decision may be “the worst decision made by any Supreme Court since the Dred Scott case reaffirmed slavery in 1857.”

As Weiland’s comments spread across the country, surprised commentators pointed to other much-maligned Supreme Court rulings, such as Plessy v. Ferguson, in 1868, which upheld segregation, and Korematsu v. United States, in 1944, which approved the forced internment camps for Japanese-Americans.

“Separate but equal? Internment of American citizens?” wrote conservative blogger Pat Powers. “No big deal, compared to whether or not there is an aggregate contribution limit for individual contributions in federal elections. At least, that’s what Rick Weiland says.”

Hurting campaign

Larry Sabato, director of the Center for Politics at the University of Virginia, said the Dred Scott comment was a “gaffe” that opens Weiland up to new attacks.

“I’ve been critical of (money in politics) too, but that doesn’t make me say that Plessy v. Ferguson was a better decision than McCutcheon,” Sabato said. “It’s a self-inflicted wound, even if it’s a small one.”

But Weiland isn’t backing down. On Thursday, he doubled down on his comparison, saying McCutcheon is worse than other Supreme Court decisions because it gives wealthy people even more influence over the political process.

Democracy loses

“It’s just another nail in the coffin of our democracy,” Weiland said. “We’re quickly turning America into a plutocracy. ... We have politicians who are supposed to be public servants who are really serving big money or special interests.”

Weiland compared McCutcheon, which lets donors give money to as many candidates as they like without worrying about hitting an overall limit, to Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson by saying both deny some people “their fundamental right to have their voices heard equally with their fellow citizens.”

The Dred Scott comparison wasn’t a spur-of-the moment quip by a ticked-off candidate. Weiland said he had anticipated the McCutcheon ruling for more than a month and carefully crafted his response.

Considered words

“It’s been under development for a long time,” Weiland said.

And though he read some of the criticism, Weiland said the response to his email, “for the most part,” had been “pretty positive.”

One national group that has endorsed Weiland, the progressive Democracy For America, asked him to send an email to that group’s membership, he said.

“I think that we are very quickly becoming known, both in state and out of state, as the candidate that’s running against big money,” Weiland said. “I think that’s a good thing.”

“I bet (Weiland’s opponents) make an ad out of it,” Sabato said. “The guy is a significant underdog, he doesn’t need any additional problems.”

Weiland could have made his point without exposing himself to backlash, he added.

“All he needed to do was say, ‘It’s one of the worst decisions since Dred Scott,’” Sabato said. “When you use a superlative like ‘worst,’ you have to be prepared to defend it.”

Weiland said he is.

“I’m looking forward to having a discussion with anybody about big money and what it’s done to our country,” Weiland said.